The only concrete new actions proposed in the Conservative platform are the provision of a loan guarantee to the Lower Churchill Falls hydroelectric project, expected to reduce GHG emissions by 4.5 Mt, along with an extension of the ecoEnergy Retrofit Credit which will likely lead to less than 1Mt of emissions reductions, and an un-budgeted commitment to finance economically viable clean energy projects.

I would like to know how a Conservative government plans to reach our targets. In particular, what additional regulations will be imposed on industrial sectors of the Canadian economy including oil sands under a Conservative government?

The Bloc has a much more complete platform on environment and climate change than the conservatives. The fact that he can not be the government is not really an argument, if you’re asking questions to the Green Party or even the NDP.

I did not address regional platforms. The Bloc platform clearly states a regional interest, which is a surprise to nobody. To use language from their platform, “What sets (The Bloc) apart from the other parties is that they focus on Canada while we focus on Québec.”

[…] the industry is doing a good job of protecting water. On the GHG issue, the Conservatives have refused to identify how they will encourage the industry to improve its performance. Mr Hawn mentions tailings, and he is absolutely correct to cite Suncor and their TRO process. […]

Where do you stand on Preston Manning’s advocacy of full cost accounting for all the water, soil, natural gas, on both inputs/extraction and outputs/emission of Tar Sands?

And, where do you stand on the questions of natural capital accounting in general (UN TEEB etc.)?

I suggest also you should distance yourself strongly from Lorrie Goldstein who is an open racist, asserting among other things that all carbon offset projects in developing nations are inherently scams, and whose lies in other matters are well documented. In the long run you are better off disavowing him and explaining what constitutes a good ethical offset regime and what does not, if that’s of interest. But don’t let him speak for you nor claim (as he does) that based on your analysis that the entire Canadian transport sector needs to be shut down by some date.

As an economist you should be aware of the abuse of aggregates. It’s no more valid to say that than to say that we can no longer flush toilets as of some date because we are moving to a 6 litre rather than 13 litre standard. Goldstein is a dangerous individual whom you shouldn’t help. He does not employ logic but lies and fallacy.

Thanks for reading. Generally, I am in favour of full-cost accounting, but I also worry that the complexities are overwhelming. I would much rather see a system which forces us to deal with the most significant external costs of production, sacrificing perfection for simplicity. I also don’t think that any policy should be applied only on oil sands. I think the approach of focusing on oil sands because they are a relatively new and growing industry misses the point of full-cost accounting – we should be looking to maximize the net benefits we derive from our resources, and this should apply to everything we do. In such a system, I expect that you would see coal fired power disappear almost immediately, along with some ethanol sources. Oil sands would not be at the top of the list.

As far as Goldstein goes, I do not know the sum total of his writing, but have seen some of his recent pieces on climate policy. In terms of his figures, he said the “equivalent” of the Canadian transport sector, which today is about 164Mt/yr. The Tory government has committed to finding another 178Mt/yr of emissions reductions by 2020, so it’s actually a useful analogy for just how big of a challenge it would be. The reason that I challenged his use of the comparative figures was that it was a comparison I had made in a piece in the Globe 10 days beforehand. I thought he had taken his example from my writing without attribution, but he has acknowledged my contribution and we are over that now. By no means does my conversation with him, or with anyone, imply that I endorse everything they do or write.